[geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Regner,
Thank you very much for your reply. If you give further attention to the
matter, would you comment further on how sufficient density is achieved in a
gas to create a solid large enough to hold itsself together and to attract more
gas. It seems to me that radiative cooling would not be enough. It's still gas
molecules in a vacuum in basically zero-g. Does it really matter how much
energy gets lost from the cloud? Suppose you could wave a magic wand and suck
every ounce of kinetic & photonic energy out of one of those giant gas clouds.
Would that alone allow it to collapse under its own gravity and form a giant
star?
JA....
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
James,
I did notice your question first time around, and I am sorry I haven't
replied until now.
The "Answers in Genesis" (AIG) page your posted got the numbers right,
but their
conclusions are, well, - hopefully based on ignorance.
Down through the first paragraph of the section "Stars Were of
Supernatural Origin"
(strange to have that in past tense...) they are quite right and I have
no objections to
what they write.
But then they state (about gas clouds collapsing to form stars)
"However, such compression would be very difficult to accomplish because
gas has a tendency to expand, not contract."
Here they appeal to your everyday experiences with gases in the Earth's
atmosphere
- they disperse and often rise in our atmosphere. Now, this is a very
poor analogy to
the case of giant molecular clouds which host star formation. Being
millions of times
heftier than the Sun they are self-gravitating - they produce their own
gravitational
field, which is very different from the circumstances here on Earth. The
densities in
these clouds can be lower than the best vacuums we can produce here on
Earth, but
the vast size of these clouds means they can still pack a lot of mass.
The clouds are
turbulent and some parts will have much larger densities and can start
to collapse.
They continue:
"In fact, if a gas cloud were to begin to be compressed, it would
drastically
increase its pressure, magnetic field, and rotation speed. All of these
factors
would strongly resist any further compression. The compression of a nebula
would be stopped long before any star could form."
The main show-stopper is pressure, whereas rotation and magnetic fields
scale in a way
that makes them minor players in this game. So it is mainly a balance
between gravity
and pressure. This balance will be struck at some radius of the
contracting sub-cloud, and
contraction will stop. As you compress a gas adiabatically (without
adding or removing
energy from the gas) the temperature will increase, as well as the
density, thereby increasing
the pressure:
pressure = constant * density * temperature (approximately)
If we could lower the temperature, the balance would hapen at a smaller
radius - more
compact sub-cloud.
Enters atomic physics: The electrons of an atom can populate a great
number of states
or orbitals that all have different energies. The one with the lowest
energy, is the ground-
state. If you excite an atom to one of those higher energy states, the
atom will spontaneously
decay into the ground-state, emitting a photon that carries away the
energy difference
between the two states. In our gas-cloud the most likely excitation
mechanism is collisions
between particles - another one is excitation by photons (since the gas
has a finite
temperature the gas will glow with a specific spectrum) - the important
part is that there is
only one decay mechanism. This means that more photons will be emitted
than were
absorbed and the difference will be extracted from the motions of the
particles between
each other - the temperature of the gas. This is called radiative
cooling, and it can be very
efficient. In fact our models indicate that the collapse will take place
in less than a million
years (in contrast to normal stellar evolution taking billions of
years). We don't have strong
observational evidence for the speed of this phase since it is still
slow on a human scale,
and since we have seen too few to be able to do the statistical analysis
to obtain lifetimes of
proto-stars.
AIG further states: "And despite claims to the contrary, we've never
seen a star forming."
I have several issues with that statement:
a) Observing stars is like taking a photo of a busy pedestrian street
and from such a single
snapshot find out how people change during their lives. The relevant
question here, is
how many births have you witnessed while shopping, or commuting to work?
We have just recently found the maternity ward and made instruments
(space-based
infrared telescopes) to peer into the maternity ward (cold, dense, dusty
gas-clouds).
b) There is no sign at the surface of a proto-star turning into a proper
star, and the process
is gradual anyway, with the nuclear fusion at the centre, slowly ramping
up.
^ c) We have seen the pregnant mothers and the newborn babies being
carried away to the
nursery. Still assuming there is no birth taking place in between seems
a bit silly to me.
But we are of course still observing to cover the full process.
To be continued (soon).
Regner
j a wrote:
> Regner,
> I realised that my question in the email below, to you, Regner, was
> contained within my short responce to Paul, so you might not have
> noticed it. So I thought I might resend so that you would know I had
> asked you something and could repond, even if to say no. I am curious
> to know if you see anything substantially wrong with the reported
> facts in the linked article.
> JA...
>
> */j a /* wrote:
>
> Paul,
> I wonder.... what the utillity is of things like the "big bang" or
> "abiogenesis" or "evolution" or even "star formation"???
> I wonder, Regner, if you have the time to read this short article
> and give us your thoughts on the "facts" reported within.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/stars-of-heaven-confirm
> JA...
>
> */Paul Deema
/* wrote:
>
> Robert S
> I truly despair when I read > 14:05:43 2007> this thread, and similar. (See
> below).
> Firstly, the paranoia. It seems to be the first shot fired by
> those who can't get their views accepted by honest workers in
> the fields in question. But worse, there is the flood of words
> which seem designed to attempt to smother the discoveries of
> the past 500(?) years. These discoveries are open to disproof
> by any who can demonstrate falsity. No one does, which leads
> to the possibility that no one can -- not because of
> ineptitude but because the disproof does not exist.
> If, instead of the flood of words, we were to be treated to a
> series of simple, testable geocentric hypotheses equivalent to
> F = ma and those which flow from it, which lead to the
> inescapable conclusion that the Sun with all its mass circles
> the tiny Earth then you'd have a prayer. It would also help
> your case if you could explain how the enormous body of
> interlocking and mutually supporting knowledge of the physical
> functioning of the Solar System can be repeatedly demonstrated
> and yet be false.
> However, I think the thing which bothers me most is resorting
> to Maxwell and quasars and alleged false proofs of relativity.
> This is taking a steam hammer to crack an egg. If the Sun
> circles the Earth you should be able to show it within the
> sphere encompassing the Solar System. My guess is that if the
> universe ended at the Oort Cloud, eff would still equal em-ae
> and the Earth would still circle the Sun.
> I have two beautiful examples of how science triumphs. The
> first concerns Gregor J Mendel who first worked out the
> principles of inheritance (not money but genes). He was an
> Augustinian priest (a cloistered order I think - in any event
> he worked in isolation) who when he died, had his papers
> burned by his abbot because the abbot feared that this
> "knowledge", if widely available, would be a threat to the
> church. Today his work is recognised and respected because it
> has utility, ie -- it works.
> The other is the disastrous effect of doctrinal domination of
> science, in this case the Soviet Union and its "Soviet theory
> of Genetics" (as though ideology could influence truth, ie --
> what is). The man the Soviets chose to back was named Lysenko.
> After 50 years(?) of failure to demonstrate the truth of his
> claims, with the Soviet Union falling further and further
> behind in this matter and the matters upon which this false
> view of genetics bore, they had to reverse their position. His
> theory did not have utility, it didn't work.
> The point I'm making is that science is about discovery -- it
> is not about invention. If you seek to disseminate the theory
> that in a gravity field the pan with 900g in it will sink and
> the pan with 1000 g in it will rise, you will forever be shown
> to be wrong.
> Paul D
> PS Almost missed this one. From your post below -
> '...then the science establishment has no right to teach that
> heliocentrism is correct, much less been scientifically
> proven. Hence we should have a voice in academia today.'
>
> Would you also give an equal voice to a flat Earth on four
> elephant's backs on a turtle's back in a really big puddle?
> The concave Earth? A flat circular Earth in the middle of a
> Tychonian system with the South Pole a really high wall of ice
> at the edge? And all the other alternatives? I'm sure the
> proponents of these alternative systems have explanations
> which they regard as at least as valid as geocentrism and that
> if you get representation then so should they.
> It's interesting how the proponents of all the odd ball
> theories seem to think it is just them against orthodoxy.
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> From sungenis@xxxxxxx Wed Dec 19 14:05:43 2007 Re:Integrity in
> science.
> RT: So speculating on peoples motives is examining evidence? I
> don't really care about peoples motives, social status,
> gender, hair-colour, whether somebody has found a quote that
> can fit into their world-view, etc., etc...
> RS: I wasnâ??t speculating. The quote tells us precisely what
> Hawkingâ??s motivations are â?? to keep the earth out of the
> center of the universe, despite the fact that the cosmological
> evidence shows him that it best fits in the center, and that
> he has to concoct an alternate cosmology just so that he can
> keep the earth out of the center. And there are more quotes
> from Hawking that say the same thing. If you would read the
> book, you would see dozens of such motivations by todayâ??s
> scientists to keep the earth out of the center, in spite of
> the evidence before them. The reason is simple. They know
> precisely what it means to have the earth in the center â?? it
> means that their whole career in science will be over and they
> are going to admit that science took a wrong turn 500 years
> ago. But today, a scientist canâ??t even express his doubt in
> evolution without losing his job. Can you imagine what
> academia would do if you, Regner Tem., said the earth was
> standing still in space? Youâ??d be picking up your last
> paycheck. If you come to this discussion believing that
> oneâ??s philosophy, his religion, his commitments to the
> establishment, his upbringing, etc., donâ??t effect how he
> views the evidence, then youâ??re not living in reality.
> This is precisely why I gave you the Michelson-Morley
> experiment as my first piece of evidence, since we are told
> there are at least two ways to interpret the results. If one
> is trying to keep the earth moving, one will interpret M/M
> Einsteinâ??s way (and Einstein said so, by his own admission,
> and you can read his words in GWW. His motivation was to keep
> the earth moving, even though the salient features of the
> experiment were suggesting that it was not be moving). If you
> want the earth to remain still, you will interpret the results
> another way. As a scientist, you know as well as I do that
> INTERPRETATION of the experimental results is the crux of the
> issue. And since interpretation is often a mixture of
> subjectivity and objectivity, then interpretations of
> experiments are always subject to scrutiny. What we are trying
> to say is (a) Einsteinâ??s way of interpreting M/M not only
> avoids Occamâ??s razor, it is, for all intents and purposes,
> absurd; and (b) since a fixed earth is a valid, reasonable and
> scientifically supportable interpretation of M/M, then the
> science establishment has no right to teach that heliocentrism
> is correct, much less been scientifically proven. Hence we
> should have a voice in academia today. But the reason we
> arenâ??t allowed to have a voice is that there are many
> ideologues, like Hawking, Sagan, Gould, Davies, and hundreds
> of others, who simply donâ??t want the public to know what the
> alternative interpretations are. Iâ??m not making this up,
> Regner. I have documented their motivations by their own
> printed words, and that is precisely why I spent four years
> gathering quotes of their "motivations" in GWW. There is no
> argument. Theyâ??ve told us what their agenda is, and I
> suspect you have the same agenda.
> RT: I care about the physical evidence. I have seen a few
> excerpts of your books, but, as I have said before, I don't
> have time to read the thousands of pages. Since you wrote the
> book, you should be able to distill the key findings into a
> couple of challenges for me, and we can take the discussion
> from there and get into all the details. That is what I would
> like to do, because I think it would be the most efficient.
> Do you have objections to that?
> RS: Ok, you donâ??t have time, and I donâ??t have time. Iâ??m
> a busy man like you. Iâ??ve got nine kids and three book
> deadlines to meet, on top of coaching two basketball teams.
> The reason I gave you the Michelson-Morley experiment to
> explain first is that your answer will tell us exactly how you
> approach this whole issue. I consider it a test for you,
> Regner. I donâ??t know anything about you other than you came
> on board this discussion group. Hence, not to accuse you now,
> but if I see you fudging with the evidence of the first
> challenge I give you, I can safely assume youâ??re going to do
> the same with the other four challenges I have, and thus
> itâ??s not worth my time. Iâ??ve been through this many times
> before with naysayers, and Iâ??ve been teaching for 35 years,
> enough to know when someone is just being obstinate and when
> someone really has solid objections. I want to see which one
> you are.
> And practically speaking, if youâ??re involved in an intense
> discussion with Allen, and as you say below, "I am sorry that
> I don't have time to take on more than one discussion at a
> time, but that is how it is," then my suggestion is not to ask
> for more than you can handle by insisting that I give you four
> challenges instead of one. Obviously, as is now the case with
> Allen, when you give your answer to the first challenge, Iâ??m
> going to come back with questions and objections for you, and
> we are going to go round and round on it until it is
> exhausted, which may take months. So why would we want to clog
> up the works with four other challenges that are going to
> require the same intensity? It doesnâ??t make sense to me.
> For the record, the other challenges I was thinking of giving
> you but held them back in order to see what you would do with
> the first challenge, involve such things as: (1) center of
> mass; (2) parallax and retrograde motion; (3) centrifugal and
> Coriolis forces; (4)Arago, Hoek, Airy telescope results;
> (5)Maxwellâ??s equations; (6)quasars, gamma ray bursters, etc;
> (7) the Sagnac experiment; (8)false proofs of relativity; (9)
> difficulties with a rotating and translating earth, and many
> other such issues.
> But again, they are all superfluous if we canâ??t get to first
> base with the first challenge. This is the most reasonable
> approach, and I hope you will agree.
> Robert Sungenis
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7
> Mail now
> .
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
>
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Other related posts:
